A lack of language skills, a low educational background or a lack of transferable job qualifications are barriers explaining a slow labour market integration of all categories of migrants. Refugee-specific obstacles are legal restrictions to access the labour market, a long duration of the asylum procedure and a temporary, insecure residence status. These barriers prevent refugees from quickly and fully participating in the labour market. Beyond these barriers, factors like less developed social networks, housing regulations, health conditions like trauma and violence during flight have strong links with the labour market outcomes of refugees. Additionally, cultural barriers are aggravating factors, and are likely to be greater for the recent refugees than earlier migration groups.
High degree of international consensus on key elements for effective integration
• To discuss the question on how to address the above mentioned refugee specific integration barriers, recommendations given in recent policy documents (Box 1 on page 14) are reviewed and enriched by findings from research.
All of the papers reviewed focus on the labour market integration of refugees except for the Commission strategy paper “European Modules for Migrant Integration”. This has been chosen as many aspects are similar for migrants and refugees. The analysis for this study refers to both, social inclusion and labour market integration as both areas are closely connected.
The review shows a high degree of international consensus on key elements of an effective integration strategy for refugees and partially these complement each other. Comparing the Commission study with the other papers reveals that much can be learnt from labour market integration of migrants and other vulnerable groups. The IMF paper, instead, pays more attention than the others on economic issues, including financial incentives for employers and costs of labour market integration and less to civil society engagement.
4.1. Access to specific health care services is limited
The UNHCR study recommends paying adequate attention to refugee-specific issues of traumata and gender related health issues whereas the OECD study also recommends to identify mental and physical health issues early by mainstreaming mental health assessments into standard health checks (table 3).
Table 3: Recommendations on public services and special needs (health, traumata)
Commission (DG Home) Modules for Integration
• Ensure equal access to public services
Study European Parliament (ECRE)
• Health practitioners should be involved in the design and implementation of national programs
UNHCR • Ensure equal access to public services
• Pay adequate attention to refugee-specific issues of traumata and gender related health issues
OECD • Ensure systematic and speedy diagnose and assistance with regards to refugees' special health needs
• Mainstream mental health assessments into standard health checks
IMF n. a.
Research • Refugees’ healthcare needs should be addressed before other objectives, such as language learning and entry into
employment, can be achieved
Physical examinations are part of routine health checks at arrival or at the start of asylum claims procedure in most countries. But only few countries screen for mental health problems. Sweden and Finland are among the few countries where asylum seeker’s routine medical check-ups include assessments of mental health. These examples might be exemplary for other EU Member States (Box 5).
Findings from research confirm that health issues can be a fundamental obstacle to integration, as they affect virtually all areas of life and shape the ability to enter employment, learn the host country’s languages or interact with public institutions. The British Survey on Refugees (2005-2009) found, for example, that those who described themselves as being in good health were more likely to be employed than other refugees.
Poor health was also associated with slower improvement in English language skills over time. Hence, the healthcare needs of refugees should be addressed before other objectives, such as language learning and entry into employment, can be achieved (Cebulla et al.
2010).
Box 5: Specific health care services for refugees in Sweden and Finland
Sweden systematically screens asylum seekers for physical and mental health problems in routine check-ups performed in primary care units. Counsellors assess mental health in conversations with asylum seekers and seek to discern whether or not, and in what context, they may have undergone traumatic experiences, how they are coping with the memories of traumatic experiences and how such memories affect their current psycho-social situation. Based on the assessment and subject to regional availability, an asylum seeker in need of further treatment may be referred for psychological counselling or psychiatric treatment with an interpreter present if need be. Centres offering health care support specifically for refugees who have been injured during war or undergone torture are to be found in 13 municipalities. Half of them are managed by the Swedish Red Cross, while the rest are run by county and regional councils. Some of the centres use “health communicators” who meet with newly arrived asylum seekers at reception facilities and in schools where language training is provided. The health communicators describe the Swedish health care system, symptoms of post-traumatic stress syndrome and other health-related issues. Health communicators undergo six months of health care training and generally speak the same language and originate from the same countries as the asylum seekers they inform.
In Finland, the Centre for Torture Survivors (CTSF) is free of charge for refugees and paid for either by the local authority of the refugee’s place or the reception facility which referred them to the centre. Multidisciplinary teams, who include professional interpreters, provide various forms of treatment. The centre also offers nationwide consultation services and trains health care and social service professionals who work with tortured refugees and asylum seekers (OECD, 2016).
Restricting health care services might imply higher long-term costs
The recommendations of the EU Commission (table 3) are not refugee-specific but highlight to ensure equal access to public services. Not all EU Member States ensure equal access to
public health services. Restrictions tend to be steered by cost concerns. Some countries restrict asylum seekers’ access to emergency care for a period of time. A recent study on Germany, where access to health care was restricted to emergency care for a period of 48 months (since 2015 for 15 months) for most asylum seekers and temporarily admitted humanitarian migrants found that restrictions over a long period imply long-term costs associated with late intervention (Bozorgmehr and Razum, 2015).
4.2. Housing dispersal policies should strike a balance
Under the EU Directive 2011/95/EU Member States must allow freedom of movement within their territory to all non-EU citizens. This right also applies to persons granted international protection and includes choosing freely the place of residence. Refugees and people granted a subsidiary protection status might, however, be restricted to choose freely where to settle. Settlement restrictions are discussed in those countries where the inflow of humanitarian migrants is large. Imposing restrictions might be necessary to spread the social and fiscal burden more equally across the country11.
The recommendations of the EP, OECD and IMF regarding targeted dispersal policies highlight the need to strike a balance between homogeneous distribution and the availability of jobs. The UNHCR study is mainly concerned with homelessness and awareness rising among landlords and social housing authorities about limitations for refugees to meet standard housing requirements (Table 4).
Table 4: Recommendations on housing regulations Commission (DG Home) homogenous distribution and the local availability of language training and employment opportunities
UNHCR • Address issue of refugee homelessness through preventive programmes
• Create greater awareness among landlords and social housing authorities about limitations for refugees to meet standard housing requirements
• Create regular points of contact for asylum-seekers living outside reception centres
OECD • Availability of employment prospects should be factored into targeted dispersal policies
IMF • Design policies aimed at increasing the supply of geographically dispersed affordable housing in order for refugees to be able to increase their labour market mobility Research • Crucial to take labour market opportunities into account
when designing location regulations
11 In a recent ruling the Court of Justice of the European Union decided that a “residence condition” may be only imposed on beneficiaries of subsidiary protection if they face greater integration difficulties than other non-EU citizens legally resident. The judgement was an answer to two cases where two Syrian nationals challenged the German “residence condition” regulation. The residence condition requires residence to be taken up in a particular place for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection receiving social security benefits.
http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2016-03/cp160022en.pdf.
Restricting the possibility of self-selection by imposing settlement rules may also be justified by the aim to facilitate integration. Immigrants tend to concentrate in large centres, often in enclaves with persons of the same origin. Living in such enclaves tends to retard the integration process. But the Swedish example also shows that dispersal policies - if badly steered - might hamper labour market integration (Box 6).
Box 6: Lessons from the Swedish refugee dispersal policy
Sweden implemented a refugee dispersal policy already in the 1980s (1985-1994).
Recently arrived immigrants were assigned to an initial place of residence. The placement policy was a reaction to immigrant concentration in large cities. The idea was to distribute asylum seekers over a larger number of municipalities that had suitable characteristics for reception, such as educational and labour market opportunities. But due to the increasing number of asylum seekers in the late 1980s, instead of the labour market criteria that initially were supposed to govern the policy, the availability of housing came to determine placement. These policies had a negative impact on refugees’ employment. Eight years after settlement, refugees who had been dispersed to areas with poor job access earned 25% less on average, showed employment levels that were 6 to 8 %age point lower, and were 40% more welfare dependent than refugees who were not settled through a dispersal policy. However, when sorting is taken into account, living in enclaves improves labour market outcomes; for instance, the earnings gain associated with a standard deviation increase in ethnic concentration is in the order of 4-5 % (Edin et al., 2004).
The policy was changed in the mid-1990s and dispersals were regulated through agreements between municipalities and central government and new arrivals were systematically informed of job opportunities in meetings with the public employment service upon reception of their residence permit. Public employment officers placed migrants in localities that matched their profile (OECD, 2016). This policy is going to be changed now again due to the very high inflows of asylum seekers. Sweden approved a new law that forces municipalities to settle migrants granted asylum due to the lack of capacity in the current system. The Act does however not affect the possibility for newly arrived immigrants to find a place on their own. The allocation of migrants between the municipalities shall take into account local labour market conditions, population size and the overall number of newly arrived immigrants, unaccompanied minors and asylum seekers already living in the municipality. How the law will be enforced is not entirely clear as there are no sanctions in the law (EU-Commission, 2016).
4.3. Civil society engagement to enhance a two-way integration process
Civil society organizations, a welcoming business environment, and the support of local communities and non-governmental organizations, are important for an effective integration. Frequent interaction between immigrants and Member State citizens is seen as a fundamental mechanism for opening societies for all immigrants but especially for refugees. By offering possibilities for participation in community activities like sports clubs or other recreational activities, host countries can convey its values. This is particularly important as public opinion towards refugees in many Member States is now more reluctant. Strong anti-immigrant parties have emerged in many countries and the public debate often focuses on problems of integration rather than possible opportunities arising from migration across Europe.
The recommendations in table 5 agree on the necessity of a proactive strategy to include refugees in community activities and of supporting social networking, such as mentor projects and volunteer interaction. In accordance with the EU Common Principles on Immigrant Integration (Annex I) which see the integration as a two-way process that
requires efforts from both refugees and the host society the Commission Modules on Migrant Integration recommend to include in the curriculum of civic orientation and integration courses everyday life aspects, the political system, history and cultural values (democracy, equality, freedom of expression).
Table 5: Recommendations on civil society engagement Commission (DG Home)
Modules for Integration
• Prevent discrimination
• Improve the public perception of migrants
• Curriculum of civic integration courses should include everyday life aspects, political system, cultural, history and values (democracy, equality, freedom of expression)
Study European Parliament (ECRE)
• Inform, prepare and involve receiving communities prior to the arrival and settlement of refugee groups
UNHCR • Create strong legal and operative anti-discrimination frameworks
• Promote community engagement (i.e. sports clubs and recreational activities)
• Support social networking, such as mentor projects and volunteer interaction
OECD • Build on civil society to integrate humanitarian migrants by e.g. non-governmental mentorship programmes and social creating strong legal and operative anti-discrimination frameworks but also by raising the awareness of the importance of anti-discrimination. Access for immigrants to institutions and services, on basis equal to national citizens and in a non-discriminatory way, is a critical foundation for better integration. The recommendations for migrant workers and ethnic minorities given in two studies for the European Parliament’s Committee on Employment and Social Affairs also apply widely to refugees (EP, 2011 and EP, 2014). In Germany, discussion of cultural differences and values forms part of several language courses which could generally be used for civic integration.
There are no systematic research findings on the impact of refugees’ participation in associations and civil society organisations. Brücker et al. (2014) find more generally strong positive correlations between migrants’ intention to stay and life satisfaction with the absence of discrimination.
4.4. Restricting welfare benefits may worsen integration
Understanding integration as two-way process, there is a public controversy on extending the “rights and duties” approach for benefit recipients also to beneficiaries of international protection. Some Member States make social benefit conditional on participating in language or integration courses or accepting the founding principles of the host society and its values. If refugees do not comply with mandatory integration measures or conditions, different types of sanctions are imposed, e.g. the withdrawal or reduction of financial or social support.
In the reviewed policy documents, only the IMF study makes some references to the role of social benefits for refugees’ labour market integration, although IMF staff gives no clear recommendations on the topic. The IMF argues that policies that address “inactivity traps” for all workers would likely benefit labour market integration of refugees. Inactivity traps can be reduced by lowering taxes and social security contributions for low-wage workers and/or by tapering social benefits more gradually upon entering employment (IMF, 2016).
However, there is no clear evidence from research that migrants, including refugees, actively select destination countries where the welfare provisions are more favourable (“welfare shopping”). Data generally do not support the hypothesis that welfare is a strong magnet for immigrants (Gulietti et al., 2013). In the context of Denmark, a country where welfare benefits are rather generous and immigrants’ welfare take-up is rather high, a study finds that while immigrants are more likely than natives to access welfare, their rates of welfare participation decrease with the length of time spent (Heinsen et al., 2013).
Nonetheless, the issue is highly debated in several Member States and some countries recently reduced cash benefits for asylum seekers or refugees. At arrival, asylum seekers receive accommodation, subsistence, and in some countries also pocket money. Germany decided in October 2015 that the Federal States are free to convert pocket money in benefits of kind (vouchers). In Denmark, welfare benefits for refugees attending compulsory introduction programme were reduced recently by almost 50 %12.Given the high cost of housing in Denmark new benefit rates are hardly poverty-proof. Policies that restrict immigrants’ access to welfare benefits are likely to worsen their socio-economic integration and ultimately could lead to an increase in welfare claims but also to social exclusion.